One might regard the pledges made to
Israel and its friends in the United States by aspiring presidential
candidates as pro forma and vaguely amusing, but that
would be a mistake. Policy commitments, even if they are lightly
entered into, are a serious matter with real-world consequences.
At the moment, the obligation to Israel goes far beyond the willingness
to give Tel Aviv billions of dollars in aid and unlimited political
cover each year. Every Republican candidate but one has affirmed
that Jerusalem is the undivided capital of a
“Jewish state,” the precise formula demanded by Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu, and each has affirmed his or her eagerness to move the U.S.
embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, which would end forever any chance
of actual peace talks with the Palestinians and would also invite a
violent reaction against Americans in many parts of the Muslim world.
Michele Bachmann has even found a private “donor” willing to pay
for the move. Newt Gingrich, who would shift the embassy to Jerusalem
within his first two hours as president and who has also promised to
name John Bolton as his secretary of state, has meanwhile discovered that the Palestinian people do not actually
exist, which certainly solves the problem of the two-state solution
or any solution at all. They were invented by hostile Arabs and
are out to destroy Israel.

Mitt Romney and Gingrich might well take
the prize for lack of any connection with reality with their demand
that U.S. Ambassador Howard Gutman, who is Jewish, be fired for suggesting that some anti-Semitism might
be the result of Israeli policies toward the Palestinians. Romney
has also criticized President Barack Obama for “insulting” Israeli
Prime Minister Netanyahu, surely one of the most interesting inversions
of truth and fiction ever to occur. Not to be outdone, Rick Perry has
promised to increase assistance to Israel, calling it “strategic defensive
aid” that benefits the United States.

While this kind of ignorant crackpottery
is unfortunately what one expects, there might be worse to come.
As part of the pro-Israel package, the same presidential hopefuls have
made clear their willingness to go to war with Iran on behalf of Israel
even if Israel is the initiator of the conflict, while the media and the
Republican Party have together conspired to keep any contrary opinions
on that issue marginalized and nearly invisible.

As Washington has demonstrated itself
unwilling to negotiate with Iran over outstanding issues and has refused
every attempt by the Iranians to compromise, there can be only one outcome
to the game that is being played, and that is war. And the characteristically
chickenhawk Republicans are ready to rock and roll based on the pseudo-information
about the perfidious Persians. Gingrich again leads the charge, calling for a stepped-up program of sabotage and assassination
inside Iran coupled with a covert operation to shut down the country’s
main oil refinery, which will supposedly lead to “regime change.” Newt
also suggested that the United States and Israel join together in “joint
operations” to attack the Iranians. Perry and Rick Santorum
also agree that it is time to order military strikes, while Mitt Romney
is keen on indicting Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for “the
crime of incitement to genocide.”

The overly ambitious and ethically challenged
wannabes who pass as statesmen in today’s United States fail to appreciate
that the feckless promises made in their lust for high office
could produce a catastrophic result. War is serious stuff, as
the past 10 years have surely taught us, and Iran, which has had seven
years to prepare for an attack, is a much larger and tougher nut than
Iraq and Afghanistan combined. Numerous commentators have
observed how fuel prices would soar because of threats to close the Straits
of Hormuz. Many in the Pentagon, including current Secretary of Defense
Leon Panetta and former Secretary Robert Gates, oppose such a conflict in recognition of the fact that
Tehran would have the ability to hit U.S. forces in Afghanistan, Iraq,
and elsewhere. As the subsequent involvement of Hezbollah
from Lebanon is a near certainty, the strike against Iran would quickly
escalate into a regional war and would spin out of control.

No matter how one feels about Iran’s
government and its ambitions, everyone should be taking notice of what
is happening to fuel the drive to war. The drumbeat is incessant,
fed by weekly warnings from leading Israeli politicians and truculent editorials and poorly informed
op-eds in leading American newspapers. On Dec. 9 and
11 alone, the Washington Post ran three op-eds and
a lead editorial all calling for more pressure on Iran. The op-ed
by Marc Thiessen of the American Enterprise Institute accused Tehran
of building a nuclear weapon that could be ready by January 2013. Thiessen
also charged Iran with complicity in al-Qaeda attacks, which most observers would find ridiculous.

The American people are being told over
and over again that Iran is developing a nuclear weapon, that Tehran
is threatening U.S. soldiers, and that Ahmadinejad has
pledged to wipe Israel off the map.Though all those assertions
can be challenged and even debunked, the case is being made that Tehran’s
perceived intransigence is irreversible, and this is making war inevitable.
A majority of Americans already believe that Iran has a nuclear weapon
and that it poses a threat to the United States that should be dealt
with, using military force if necessary.

Pushing back against the tide of conformity
on the Iranian menace is Rep. Ron Paul of Texas. Paul’s
crimes against the status quo consist of saying that he would eliminate
all foreign aid, of which Israel is the principal beneficiary, and that
he would not go to war with Iran for Israel because Israel, with its
large nuclear arsenal and sophisticated military, is quite capable of
making its own decisions relating to its security. Paul is also willing to talk with the Iranians instead
of constantly threatening them. Those positions, which appear
to be reasonable enough, arouse an almost palpable anger among some pundits. Paul was the only leading Republican excluded from last week’s Republican Jewish Coalition
(RJC) presidential debate, where many of the positions in
support of Israel made by leading Republicans and related above were
actually spelled out. RJC Executive Director Matthew Brooks explained
that Paul was “far outside of the mainstream of the Republican Party
and this organization.”

Over at Red
State, “mikeymike 143″ wrapped
the message of hate in vitriol, declaring that Paul was an “anti-Semite
loser” and that his “followers are the dirtbags of society. Conspiracy
loons, antiwar leftists, and anti-Semites. That is why the Republican
Jewish Coalition banned him and his Paulbots from the presidential debate
they moderated.” Eric Golub of the Washington Times ramped
it up a notch more, writing that “Ron Paul supporters are angry at his
exclusion … despite Dr. Paul himself not publicly even caring. Supporters
of the Klan do not get angry when they are excluded from NAACP banquets.
Go on Ron Paul message boards, read the anti-Semitism, and then understand
why nobody wants these miscreants anywhere near respectable events.”

Well, if that is the case, count me as
a miscreant. Apparently objecting to the billions of dollars in
foreign aid lavished on Israel and refusing to go to war on her behalf
is enough to cast one out into the wilderness, but there is even more.
Josh Block, a former spokesman for the American Israel Public Affairs
Committee (AIPAC), sent out a message
on a neoconservative journalist listserv called
“The Freedom Community” describing as anti-Semitic anyone who is
anti-Israel or who does not agree that “Iran with a nuke is a problem.”
Criticizing Israel or questioning the Iran nuclear
narrative therefore makes one an anti-Semite, a conclusion that
certainly
simplifies thinking about the Middle East. It also makes the broader
arguments being made by the friends of Israel come full circle.
Any questioning of the United States’ relationship with Israel is
anti-Semitism.
Any change in how Washington hands out tax money that would in any way
reduce aid to Israel is anti-Semitism. Any criticism of
Israel’s policies with its neighbors is anti-Semitism. Any questioning
of Israel’s “right” to start a regional war with Iran that will
inevitably drag the United States in is also anti-Semitism. I’m
sure that the picture is clear. Claims of anti-Semitism fit every
situation where Israel is even peripherally involved. The slightest
suggestion of anti-Semitism is the ultimate weapon, intended to end
every
debate and to ease the way into yet another Middle Eastern war that
the United States does not need to fight, cannot afford, and from which
it will likely reap the whirlwind.

201203802164 Responseshttp%3A%2F%2Foriginal.antiwar.com%2Fgiraldi%2F2011%2F12%2F14%2Fthe-inevitable-war-with-iran%2FThe+Inevitable+War+With+Iran2011-12-15+06%3A00%3A09Philip+Giraldihttp%3A%2F%2Foriginal.antiwar.com%2F%3Fp%3D2012038021 to “The Inevitable War With Iran”

if washington dc declares war on Iran, i strongly suggest the american people declare war on DC…

I for one will want to have nothing to do with this country any more. enough of my tax dollars from working 12 hour days to make end meat have been squandered bailing out millionaire bankers and spent murdering iraqis, afghanis, pakistanis and helping the racist israelis exterminate the palestinians…

Phil great essay. I have a little hope. Most people are disgusted with these wars beyond belief. But sadly, they are pulled along by the prowar propaganda. We who are better informed must keep up the fight anywhere we can, by writing in newspaper blogs, and even the enemy blogs if they let us. Make reasoned arguments and keep up the fight. Try to post where the people are ill informed. Don't let alittle abuse disuade you. If they bounce you go somewhere else. Try to be civil no matter how hard it is too do. A few comments a day may help keep the wars away. They still haven't got total control in this country.

The War with Iran will begin with a massive Terror Event that will make September 11, 2001 look like a Sunday picnic.

We will be informed within moments that our governments have incontestable, irrefutable evidence and proof that Iran perpetrated this cowardly attack against freedom, and that appropriate steps are being taken, even as we speak, to punish the IslamoFascists and to make the world safe once again for God's (sic) Chosen Ones: Israel and the United States of America.

Any who would doubt this scenario are invited to ask themselves the following simple Question: when Washington and their hired guns in Tel Aviv decide that the time has come to wage war against the people, land, and nation of Iran, WHO and/or WHAT is going stop them? And HOW?

This is an excellent article, one filled with commonsense which, in America, is not very common especially among the 'leadership group'.

What frightens me most is the obvious facts that insanity seems to affect most Americans. There seems to be a complete loss of rational thinking especially if the world 'Israel' is mentioned.

What the outcome of this hysteria will be seems obvious. WW3 will happen and that will lead to nuclear war and the distinct possibility of human extinction. But it seems as long as Israel survives, the other nations in the world don't count!

I am an anti-Semite and glad to be this way. I have watched the brutality of Israel towards the Palestinians, their war crimes year after year and I have strongly condemned it as every person in the world should have.

I still don't see how a war with Iran would proceed. Any war would necessarily involve bringing in the uniforms and saying, right, how do we win this? And the answer, even from the American, let alone the Israeli military, would be to ask, what do you mean, "win"?

Because if you mean do some damage and then leave, well, yes, we can do that. A lot of damage. Change their form of government? Well, you'd have to occupy the country, and that would take… ten times the number of troops in all of NATO combined. Thousands of casualties, trillions of dollars.

Stop Iran from building a nuclear weapon? No, the uniforms will say, in fact, attacking them will guarantee an Iranian nuclear weapon.

Slow them down a bit? No, you'd speed them up.

It really looks hard to see what sort of plan the planners could put in front of the warmongers that would make even the slightest bit of sense.

There's a real-world simulation currently being run by millions of people around the world on this exact subject that has some interesting things to offer on the topic. It's called "Battlefield 3"; it involves an attack on Iran.

The developers of the game clearly did their homework. The Iranian forces the "heroes" encounter are extremely well-equipped- easily the equivalent of western troops. And there are a lot of them.

The most useful lesson the game provides? Everybody in the invading force dies.

The meta-strategic, realpolitik objective is domination and control of the remaining, relatively easy-to-get-to oil on the planet. Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Iran control a major chunk of exactly that and it is absolutely imperative that — if the U.S., Japan, and Eurozone economies and polities are to survive — that oil must remain under western control (as opposed to Chinese or Russian control).

Why does anyone think Israel was created in the first place? It was to provide a tactical and strategic outpost for Western influence, control, and ultimately, hegemonic domination of the oil in that region.

Remember, it took Moses 40 years to find a place to settle on that DIDN'T have any oil.

nah, we will wake up one day and turn on the telly and see an iranian "response" to all the terrorist attacks we have been committing against iran. Maybe they will close the strait of hormuz, maybe they will invade syria fighting turkish troops. Who knows? It's too chaotic. Which makes war much more plausible.

I just hope, Americans are smart enough, not to vote IMHO criminal bastards like Gingrich and Bolton into the oval office. But, on the other hand, Obama failed completely to give people of other
nations the impression that he is better than Bush. Just reading the commentaries in SPON (Spiegel Online) and WON (Welt Online) can tell you the percentage of Germans who hate the US, its between 80 and 90 percent. That wasn't so at (male) Clinton's time, but Hillary has obviously all competence replaced by arrogance.
Ron Paul, is the ONLY choice who may turn that around.
W9

Why is everythiing i write here put into moderation. Is this so called libertarian site or what? I have posted here for years and have always followed the rules. My post that vanished in cyberspace was as pablum as could be. The neocons on their sites have more free discussion then here.

Anyone objecting to Israel's constant slaughtering of Palestinians and the ongoing theft of what is left of Palestine, should be honoured to have that meanigless and vile epithet of "Anti Semitism" hurled upon them. The Palestinians are 100% Semites, whereas the overwhelming majority of the usurper Jews who entered Palestine illegally and ended up stealing the land, have absolutely NO connection to Palestine or the Middle East. They are overwhelmingly converts to Judiasm and as such, have as much Semitism as Palestians have a Chinese heritage. So, please honour me with that epithet as described by those who use it to bludgeon into silence those who condemn and disagree with their blood "sport" of Palestinian slaughter and outright theft.

Why has my comment been deleted by the administrator when he/she had no chance to even read it, nor have I said anything objectionable. You are turning into a totalitarian web site that censores unjustly and does NOT allow freedom of speach. STOP pretending that you are something that you are NOT.

I'm all for attacking Iran…if the invading force is made up of the sons and daughters of neocons who staff AIPAC, National Review, AEI, FOX NEWS. Let's see how much coverage the war gets when their little darlings are fighting a winless war.

Would those calling for war be so vocal if their sons were in the first wave to attack Iran? Would they be banging the drum for war If they knew they would have to care for a son who had his facial features burned away or a son who has nubs for hands and feet? Hell no they wouldn't! They want the American toy soldeirs to go in and sacrifice their lives,while the neocons and their precious little future neocons slip in between their crisp white sheets every night.

A great example of this was when a general overheard a neocon suggest that we paint one of our aircrafts in UN colors and have Saddam shoot it down, giving Bush and excuse to invade Iraq. The general replied, "That's a good idea. How soon can you begin flight school, so that you can fly that airplane?' The idea was dropped.

The war with Iran stated a long time ago. We funded and armed Iraq to attack Iran. We provided everything to keep the war going. Presently it is clear we (old colonial powers + Irsrael) have been
attacking inside Iran. Several recent major explosions at different locations just do not happen without an evil outside influence like navy seals.
The news paper war will happen when we are not in any doubt of the outcome and they want to put a smiling face on the long war.
The evil influence for Iran oil goes back to prior to World War II

The evil power brokers and war mongers have been effect for a very long time. In 1915 it was just as likely that the USA would enter World War I on the side of Germany than the british side. There were actually many more German immigrants along with a very large Irish population who hated the british.
What happened was the old time "rush" type news people organized and smear attacked those who wanted us to say out of european conflicts. Charles Lindbergh's father was a congressman who opposed the Federal reserve and WWI and they attacked him and got him replaced in office with a war monger.
In 1916 the German would have clearly won wwI with the british out of men and the french shooting their own soldiers for revolting at the insanity of two years of trench warfare.
Suddenly the war mongers were effect in getting us into the war and we have never stopped bleeding for their profit since.
The war in Iran is going to happen and we are going to bleed and those who killed our ancestors will continue to kill our kids. It is sad but all really is lose for people of peace.

Such a vilified and demonized nation; it's sad to see the same procedure being used over and over again to isolate, vilify, divide, and conquer one nation after another. No recourse or justice. Only destruction and submission to a policy of robbery.

Such a vilified and demonized nation; it's sad to see the same procedure being used over and over again to isolate, vilify, divide, and conquer one nation after another. No recourse or justice. Only destruction and submission to a policy of robbery.

When our war with Iran commences and what's left of the world's economy craters, those who criticize Israel, Bibi Netayahu or Bernie Madoff will be guilty of anti-Semitism. Which by then will have been conflated into terrorism. Good thing the Army has been empowered to round up, ship out or kill anybody who speaks harshly about the President of the United States overlords. Uzbekistan here we come.

If being anti-zionazi is being anti-Semitic, then I'm an anti-Semite and proud to be one. If opposing mass punishments, murder and land-grabbing, economic strangulation, and creating the world's largest open air concentration camp is anti-Semitic, then fine, I'm an anti-Semite.

If being anti-zionazi is being anti-Semitic, then I'm an anti-Semite and proud to be one. If opposing mass punishments, murder and land-grabbing, economic strangulation, and creating the world's largest open air concentration camp is anti-Semitic, then fine, I'm an anti-Semite.

I don't want anyone to die but if I were pressed to select any I'd make it a requirement that all politicians seeking war have to gear up and take point on the assault and until all operations conclude. No rest for the wicked as it were. If not them then their immediate family members. If they're unwilling to do so then no war can take place. If it's not important for themselves or their own flesh and blood to die for then it's obviously not worth anyone else dying over. Case closed.

Philip Giraldi is absolutely correct in his assessment that war with Iran is inevitable. It is inevitable because USA foreign policy is driven by a confluence of political and economic forces including: Zionist AIPAC / ADL / JDL influence, pro-Zionist fundamentalist Christians intent upon their Rapture, the Military Industrial Complex, Big Oil interests, and proponents of the New World Order like the Federal Reserve System, Wall Street Mobsters, & City of London Mobsters.

The bat-shite crazy politicians of both political parties see no other recourse but regional or preferably global war as the only 'solution' to the current world-wide economic malaise, no doubt reinforced by their perception that WW-1 and WW-2 were 'net benefits' to the international ruling class.
Global nuclear conflagration would also solve other major agenda of the NWO — depopulating this planet's 7 Billion people by 80 to 90 percent. It's far simpler to kill off all but 500 Million of the Elite, their servants / slaves, and their security forces through global war than to Red List / Blue List roundups into FEMA camps and awaiting natural gas incinerators.

The Western world's political and economic leadership has gone certifiably insane, along with a majority of the USA Congress. The rise of fascistic militarized repression of the West's domestic populations virtually assures that 'resistance is futile'. A new and far worse false flag terror attack than 9/11/2001 is on the domestic USA agenda carried out by the PNAC cabal or Israel, whichever can manipulate the most resonant and believable new conspiracy theory pedaled by the MSM.

deleting posts by blog contributors is no way to garner additional financial support, nor is it conducive to populist ideals regarding free speech — antiwar.com administrators are apparently also fascists …

Next step, which some have already suggested: "anti-semitism" = terrorism. And terrorists foreign or American can be tortured, detained indefinitely, and killed by the US government. "Anti-semitism" will be a crime against the state, rejecting war with Iran will be punishable with death from baruch obama's panel of death. We're getting to the point where Americans in America have about the same few rights as Palestinians in israel.

there's a backlash coming…people have had enough with the ever-changing reasons for war with Israel's regional enemies…the 5th column traitors in the media and gov't….the ally who never contributes money, or troops, or logistics while America sacrifices at home and abroad for the Israeli security…
If criticizing Israel is anti-semitic, than so be it. NO NATION CAN GET AWAY WITHOUT CRITICISM.
There are plenty of worse sins to commit than being antisemitic anyway: leaving the toilet seat up. forgetting to put the cap on the toothpaste tube, talking in a movie theater – ALL worse than being called an antisemite. Convenient, playing the religious-Holocaust canard to deflect outrage at these mortal Chosenite scumbags.
When my country stops catering to the whims of a foreign nation that is helping the Pentagon suck us dry, I'll shut up. When the Palestinians have a state, when the press stops manufacturing never-ending wars in the MENA area, then the criticism of Israel may cease.
Until then, Israel, deal with the criticism that your heinous actions bring.

AN OPEN LETTER TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES (With Copies Furnished: The Congress of the United States, and All Announced and/or unAnnounced Candidates For President, 2012).

SUBJECT: The Proposed Invasion and Occupation of Iran

Dear Sir,

In accordance with and as specified by the Constitution of the United States of America, you WILL NOT invade Iran without a formal Declaration of War from the Congress of the United States.

Also in accordance with and also as specified by the Constitution of the United States of America, no money will be authorized for or be spent on an invasion of Iran UNTIL you ask for and get a formal Declaration of War from the Congress of the United States.

Who says so? WE say so. We, The People of the United States of America.

PS: And what happens if you ignore this letter, and invade Iran (with Congressional approval, no doubt) but without a Declaration of War?

Then you will be arrested and put on trial for Violating the Constitution. Additionally, the entire Congress will be arrested and put on trial for Dereliction of Duty for letting you do it. To put it in Chicago-speak, Mr President, your predecessor bullshitted his way past the Congress and the American people into Afghanistan and Iraq, and it looks like you’re going to be able to bullshit your way “out” of Iraq (and maybe even Afghanistan) just in time for the 2012 elections. But, you WILL NOT bullshit your way past the American people into Iran. Not again. Not this time.

War is organized homicide. The US military cannot fight it's way out of a guerrilla paper bag and has not won a guerrilla war in 109 years (the Philippine Insurrection of 1902). Guerrillas own warfare and they almost always defeat their military foes. Killing is not the same thing as winning. The US military always kills many more guerrillas than US soldiers are killed by guerrillas sometimes in numbers approaching 100 to 1 sometimes in numbers approching genocide but they almost always lose.

Der Spiegel, No 49. The Russian NATO-Ambassador went to Washington and asked: "If people from Mars were to disarm Iran completely, would you still deploy the missiles in Bulgaria, Romania and Poland ?" And they answered: "Yes, that will be made as decided." Arrogant, bloody fools. Of course, this leads to Launch On Warning and suicide by mistake. Bob Aldridge -www.plrc.org-wrote: "Whether they are on ships or land, they are still a necessary component for an unanswerable first strike."

How does the level of "imminent peril" to a conflict with Iran nowadays compare with the 1987-1988 period when Reagan sent part of a US fleet into the Persian Gulf? The US accidentally shot down an Iranian passenger jet in 1988 – which Reagan promptly publicly apologized for (unlike his predecessors after the US military killed innocent foreigners). But aside from that apology, Reagan's policy struck me as mindlessly bellicose – simply waiting for a spark or a pretext to justify US attacks on Iran.

How does the imminent peril of a conflict with Iran nowadays compare with the 1987-88 period when Reagan sent part of the US Navy to the Persian Gulf? That had disastrous consequences for the Iranians when the US mis-identified an Iranian passenger jet and shot it down. (Reagan promptly and publicly apologized – unlike subsequent presidents after foreign civilians were killed).

How is it this dangerous parasite which can make our nation act against its own self-interest again and again has such total control over our country? The Iran war should have been where we drew the line and ripped that parasite from our nation's neck.

Even if we roll through Iran and crush their military, we'll still lose. Why? Iranians- Persians- have a long memories and insults and injustices aren't easily forgotten. We deposed President Mossadegh in '53, and they waited until '79 to get some payback in the form of occupying our embassy in Tehran. 25 years to wait for payback- that's long enough for your infant children to be grown and have kids of their own, and every one of them potential targets for whoever decides it's time to exact their revenge for the Invasion of 2012. Is that the sort of legacy you want to leave for your children and grandchildren?

Imagine each and every Iranian city as a Stalingrad- do you think for one minute the US public will accept the kind of casualties that come from a protracted city fight? Add to that the modern weapons the Iranians already possess, not even counting what men and materials they'll have handed to them from every other country wanting a piece of American hide.

I know from my own time in uniform the American military machine is formidable, but as we've already seen in the last ten years it's not unbeatable, and beatable by forces much smaller and less well equipped.

Cake walk, indeed. Yes, Iraq and Afghanistan will indeed be a cakewalks compared to the brand of hospitality Iran could very easily prepare for us.

We no longer have Dick Cheney attempting to instigate an attack. He tried twice to force an attack, but the military stopped him. General Peter Pace and Admiral William Fallon were both forced into retirement for helping stop Cheney. The nation owes them a great thanks. The US DOD has started it's pushback against the political side of the US government who is willing to parrot the Israeli propaganda line. On the Israeli side, Meir Dagan, the retired head of the Mossad, has raised Hell about the lies from the Likkudniks and forced Ehud Barack to state that they have no plans for an attack. The real indicator of an impending attack will be if oil futures jump unexectedly because the insiders will be trying to make billions with the advance knowledge that oil prices will sky rocket.

Dirty nuke in London for the Olympics? UK deploying 30,000 military personnel, warships and anti-aircraft missiles in London – for a sporting event. Bizarre. Still, no one in the UK moans because all armed forces are 'national heroes' according to their propaganda outlets, even the ones that kill women and kids.

The right in power in Israel came into their position through the assassination of Rabin. Read MJ Rosenberg at Huffington Post.

Rabin famously did not encourage AIPAC and felt that Israel needed no go-betweens to determine policy with the US.

The clown show that is the Republican candidate line-up fall all over themselves to get Israel to see how determined we are to support a war with Iran. There are those with a genuine fear that such a war would be the end of Israel. Who's the anti-semite? Who wants to hasten the "end times"?

Among people who wish Israel well, most feel they must kiss Netanyahu's ring, as though he is the legitimate choice of Israeli's , as though his type of leader (Sharon) was not thrust on them by an assassin's bullet. Again, who is the anti-semite?

[…] and tougher nut than Iraq and Afghanistan combined,” Giraldi wrote in a recent column on Antiwar.com: ”Numerous commentators have observed how fuel prices would soar because of threats to close […]

let's not build up on your infant fantasies. when, oh when u.s. populus will grow out of their imbecility? all of you know that there are millions of you willing to kill each other here in your
beloved ol us, let alone the chanse to be paid for this sport and entertainmant. you lost it 150
years ago, too late.